On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds , 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002)
For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Presentation of expert testimony to establish, under a theory of newly discovered evidence,

State v. Kevin M. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/4/08
For Champlain: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶15      The State first argues that Champlain has waived the armband issue. The State contends that Champlain cannot not be heard to complain about the jury seeing the armband device when he himself declined Strand’s offer of a long-sleeved shirt before he was brought into the courtroom for his trial.

State v. Jeremy T. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, PFR filed 7/14/08
For Greene: Kristen D. Schipper

Issue: Whether the sentencing court may order that DOC distribute “gifted” (as opposed to wage-based) funds in a prisoner’s account to satisfy a restitution obligation.

Holding:

¶12      We observe that Wis. Stat. § 973.20 does not limit the consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay out of funds derived from only earnings or wages. 

State v. Jeremy T. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, PFR filed 7/14/08
For Greene: Kristen D. Schipper

Issue/Holding: Restitution order amendment, directing DOC to disburse funds from the prisoner’s account, did not violate double jeopardy although the amendment occurred three years after the original order:

¶16      Greene’s double jeopardy argument focuses on the fact that DOC, in applying the original restitution order, did not distribute funds from his accounts to pay restitution in the three years prior to the entry of the amended restitution order.

State v. William Agosto, 2008 WI App 149, PFR filed 10/21/08
For Agosto: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The defendant’s mother, who posted subsequently-forfeited cash bail, is a “victim” for restitution purposes:

¶8        …

• Agosto committed the “crime” of bail-jumping. He pled guilty and the circuit court entered a judgment convicting him of that crime.
• As a result of that crime,

State v. Anthony Houston Lee, 2008 WI App 185
For Lee: Carl W. Chessir

Issue/Holding:

¶11      As noted, Wis. Stat. § 973.20 authorizes a trial court to order restitution to victims of a “[c]rime considered at sentencing,” which includes “any crime for which the defendant was convicted and any read-in crime.” Sec. 973.20(1g)(a) & (1r). We conclude that this language is clear and unambiguous, and that it requires us to reverse the restitution order.

State v. Charles W. Mark, 2008 WI App 44; on appeal following remand in State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶57      In summary, while the termination from the community treatment program and the rule violation were presented as conduct that, along with the hotel incident,

State v. Paul A. Wilinski, 2008 WI App 170
For Wilinski: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11      Wisconsin courts have not yet articulated the standard for reviewing a circuit court’s order for commitment under Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(a). The State proposes that courts should review such orders under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. Wilinski seems to concede this is the appropriate standard of review.

State v. Paul A. Wilinski, 2008 WI App 170
For Wilinski: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: NGI commitment to institutional care supported by the evidence, in that

• The nature of the offense itself (violent assault coupled with threat to kill) supported a finding of significant risk of harm if Wilinski were released (¶13);
• Wilinski failed to comply with conditional release under prior NGI commitment,

State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09
For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether § 980.09 (2005-06) grants the circuit court a greater “gatekeeper role” than the prior statute in ordering an evidentiary hearing on a discharge petition.

Holding: 

¶22      The State’s premise that the new statute grants the circuit court a greater role than it played in a probable cause determination runs contrary to the development of the law.